Like every other website on the planet, SmallNetBuilder uses cookies. Our cookies track login status, but we only allow admins to log in anyway, so those don't apply to you. Any other cookies you pick up during your visit come from advertisers, which we don't control. If you continue to use the site, you agree to tolerate our use of cookies. Thank you!

Router Charts

Router Ranker

NAS Charts

NAS Ranker

More Tools

Wireless Reviews

I expected to hear from NETGEAR after the WNDR3700v2 review posted, given the poorer (vs. the original WNDR3700) 5 GHz band results. NETGEAR contacted me to say that my review had caused them to go back and take a look at other samples from their pilot manufacturing run, where my review sample came from.

NETGEAR explained in an email that some of the pilot run routers had "antenna placement issues" that sometimes produced "sub-optimal results". NETGEAR explained further during a phone call that it was actually antenna cable placement that caused some samples to have a cable pinched under a cover mounting post. High frequency RF doesn't like things like pinched or sharply bent cables, so NETGEAR's explanation made sense.

I opened my review sample and found no sign of cable damage. But I agreed to rerun the 5 GHz tests on a new test sample anyway. NETGEAR was about to release a new firmware revision (1.0.0.8), which was loaded on the new test sample. Since it is our policy to test products only with publicly-released firmware, NETGEAR didn't send the sample until the firmware was released.

The 1.0.0.8 firmware documentation contains no reference to wireless performance improvements. But it does include Fixed Application disconnection issue in every 5~10 minutes like Google talk, Battlefield, Starcraft, mIRC, AIM, ooVoo, etc., which may be of interest to some users.

Since I did not do a complete retest of both bands, I have not made a separate Wireless Chart entry and instead have substituted the new results for the old.

Because you need to go back and forth to compare the WNDR3700v1, WNDR3700v2 and WNDR3700v2 retest results, I've pulled them into the tables below to ease your pain.

Test

A

B

C

D

Avg

Diff

WNDR3700 v1

73.0

49.2

55.4

33.3

52.7

WNDR3700 v2

60.5

51.9

29.1

16.1

39.4

+12%

WNDR3700 v2 - Retest

66.9

44.6

33.1

31.8

44.1

Table1: 5 GHz band throughput comparison - Downlink, 20 MHz

Test

A

B

C

D

Avg

Diff

WNDR3700 v1

67.4

39.6

42.4

27.6

44.3

WNDR3700 v2

51.2

43.1

27.8

21.6

36.0

-5%

WNDR3700 v2 - Retest

52.5

34.1

29.6

20.8

34.2

Table 2: 5 GHz band throughput comparison - Uplink, 20 MHz

Test

A

B

C

D

Avg

Diff

WNDR3700 v1

59.3

81.0

71.5

30.2

60.5

WNDR3700 v2

57.6

56.2

49.3

11.1

44.0

+13%

WNDR3700 v2 - Retest

50.0

61.7

68.0

16.8

49.1

Table 3: 5 GHz band throughput comparison - Downlink, 40 MHz

Test

A

B

C

D

Avg

Diff

WNDR3700 v1

66.2

65.0

63.7

33.3

57.1

WNDR3700 v2

73.2

43.6

45.7

6.9

42.4

+18%

WNDR3700 v2 - Dell Mini

70.5

45.9

54.8

28.2

49.9

Table 4: 5 GHz band throughput comparison - Uplink, 40 MHz

I've also calculated average throughput for the four test locations in each test run, which is in the Avg column and the difference between the averages for the v2 original and retest results, in the Diff column.

Using the difference calculation shows that performance did improve with the retest in three out of four cases.

Here are links to the original test IxChariot wireless test plots if you'd like to explore further:

Closing Thoughts

I can't really say exactly what accounts for the the slight performance improvement in the retest. I don't think that NETGEAR cherry-picked a router for the retest. But I'm sure they tested it before they sent it, to be sure that it was properly performing.

As I said, I didn't see any of the alleged cable pinching in my original review sample and the quick peek I took inside the retest sample showed the new 5 GHz antennas in the same position as the original sample and the cables appeared to be nowhere within pinching distance of the cover mounting post.

At any rate, the retested v2, although better, still doesn't beat the original's performance. And that's where I'm going to leave it.